6 ms·

Tldr: the claim is that when male managers are faced with stack ranking employees, they will often choose male reports over female reports due to sexist bias.

by jey 9y ago

hnaccount357 9y ago
If I take that at face value doesn't that mean any performance evaluation system would be flawed so long as a man is in charge of it? (Assuming that women don't also rate women higher) >“This pay-for-performance system is fundamentally flawed,” Tavis said in an interview. “The performance element is very subjective.” What is the alternative?
- nradov 9y ago
  One partial alternative is 360-degree performance reviews where each employee's performance is subjectively evaluated not just by one manager but rather by a collection of other employees they work with spread out across all levels of the org chart. Of course that's not perfect either but at least it provides more data points and can reduce the impact of some biases.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    Not to mention it removes the whole, "Ok, you get the 5 this time around, the rest of you have to wait your turn" bullcrap.
  - koolba 9y ago
    If everyone has similar biases then having more reviewers isn’t going to address the issue. It would just normalize the bias toward the mean of the reviewers. I’ve seen that first hand at offices that do this type of review system and the “cool kids” still end up on top. At least individual biases being the driver allows a person to find a manager that champions their style of person.
matt4077 9y ago
I don't know if the article is too long, but "due to sexist bias" is certainly too short to give it justice. The specific problem with stack ranking is the one-on-one ranking method. I'm absolutely convinced that I myself would succumb to all sorts of biases when asked to rate people like that: I'd tend to think the silent, introvert guy who stays late and has no fashion sense is smarter than the outgoing jock leaving at 5pm sharp to be with his family. I'd somehow convince myself that the guy I enjoy eating lunch with is more important than the Belgian guy who doesn't speak english well enough to socialise... The article makes a similar point: “My observation was whoever was the best orator got their people ranked higher.” On aggregate, it's quite obvious that these biases could amount to gender-specific discrimination, even if not a single evaluator had gender on their minds.
- jey 9y ago
  True. I would have done better if I had omitted the word "sexist" and simply said "due to biases".
- pwinnski 9y ago
  One at a time, the reasons given for bias are never[0] gender or race, but collectively, well, I've already mentioned a recent HBR study[1] in the comments here once, but I'll stop at twice. [0] For some reasonable value of "never" [1] https://hbr.org/2017/10/a-study-used-sensors-to-show-that-men-and-women-are-treated-differently-at-work https://hbr.org/2017/10/a-study-used-sensors-to-show-that-me...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mfoy_ 9y ago
I think a simpler and better claim would be that: When managers are faced with stack ranking employees, they will often decide based on factors not purely related to the productivity or value of the employee. ---- That, and as an employee in a stack-ranked organization, you know you need to be competitive. Not in terms of productivity but in terms of "in the eyes of your manager"-- Perception is more important than performance. Studies have shown that men compete more aggressively than women, on average. So it's certainly plausible that men enjoy a gender-driven advantage that isn't purely due to gender-discrimination. Rather, it is the system that is biased. This reminds me of that "racist algorithm" debacle.
- pwinnski 9y ago
  That's one possibility, but a recent HBR study[0] suggests that we lean on "reasons" like that more quickly than we should. [0] https://hbr.org/2017/10/a-study-used-sensors-to-show-that-men-and-women-are-treated-differently-at-work https://hbr.org/2017/10/a-study-used-sensors-to-show-that-me...
  - mfoy_ 9y ago
    So you're saying it's not the system, or at least not solely the system, and that the managers are almost certainly biased? I can appreciate that. It's almost certainly true. Most people are biased. The point of my comment wasn't argue differently, or to defend Uber or their managers, but to show how choosing a sexist system is the same as being sexist, in effect.
  - LeoJiWoo 9y ago
    I'm highly skeptical of your links explanation. People have good reason to be doubtful of social sciences, and the replication crisis has only gotten worse now affecting biological science. https://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248 https://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-... http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778 http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778
- sidlls 9y ago
Grustaf 9y ago
Even if true, why would this be a bigger problem in a stack ranking system? Surely they wouldn’t promote more people in total just because they had some other, more reasonable system? They’d still favour men if they are anti-women.
maxxxxx 9y ago
When I look at the female managers in my company I don't think they do any better.

Tldr: the claim is that when male managers are faced with stack ranking employees, they will often choose male reports over female reports due to sexist bias.

by jey 9y ago

Tldr: the claim is that when male managers are faced with stack ranking employees, they will often choose male reports over female reports due to sexist bias.

hnaccount357 9y ago

If I take that at face value doesn't that mean any performance evaluation system would be flawed so long as a man is in charge of it? (Assuming that women don't also rate women higher) >“This pay-for-performance system is fundamentally flawed,” Tavis said in an interview. “The performance element is very subjective.” What is the alternative?

nradov 9y ago
One partial alternative is 360-degree performance reviews where each employee's performance is subjectively evaluated not just by one manager but rather by a collection of other employees they work with spread out across all levels of the org chart. Of course that's not perfect either but at least it provides more data points and can reduce the impact of some biases.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  Not to mention it removes the whole, "Ok, you get the 5 this time around, the rest of you have to wait your turn" bullcrap.
- koolba 9y ago
  If everyone has similar biases then having more reviewers isn’t going to address the issue. It would just normalize the bias toward the mean of the reviewers. I’ve seen that first hand at offices that do this type of review system and the “cool kids” still end up on top. At least individual biases being the driver allows a person to find a manager that champions their style of person.

matt4077 9y ago

I don't know if the article is too long, but "due to sexist bias" is certainly too short to give it justice. The specific problem with stack ranking is the one-on-one ranking method. I'm absolutely convinced that I myself would succumb to all sorts of biases when asked to rate people like that: I'd tend to think the silent, introvert guy who stays late and has no fashion sense is smarter than the outgoing jock leaving at 5pm sharp to be with his family. I'd somehow convince myself that the guy I enjoy eating lunch with is more important than the Belgian guy who doesn't speak english well enough to socialise... The article makes a similar point: “My observation was whoever was the best orator got their people ranked higher.” On aggregate, it's quite obvious that these biases could amount to gender-specific discrimination, even if not a single evaluator had gender on their minds.

jey 9y ago
True. I would have done better if I had omitted the word "sexist" and simply said "due to biases".
pwinnski 9y ago
One at a time, the reasons given for bias are never[0] gender or race, but collectively, well, I've already mentioned a recent HBR study[1] in the comments here once, but I'll stop at twice. [0] For some reasonable value of "never" [1] https://hbr.org/2017/10/a-study-used-sensors-to-show-that-men-and-women-are-treated-differently-at-work https://hbr.org/2017/10/a-study-used-sensors-to-show-that-me...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

mfoy_ 9y ago

I think a simpler and better claim would be that: When managers are faced with stack ranking employees, they will often decide based on factors not purely related to the productivity or value of the employee. ---- That, and as an employee in a stack-ranked organization, you know you need to be competitive. Not in terms of productivity but in terms of "in the eyes of your manager"-- Perception is more important than performance. Studies have shown that men compete more aggressively than women, on average. So it's certainly plausible that men enjoy a gender-driven advantage that isn't purely due to gender-discrimination. Rather, it is the system that is biased. This reminds me of that "racist algorithm" debacle.

pwinnski 9y ago
That's one possibility, but a recent HBR study[0] suggests that we lean on "reasons" like that more quickly than we should. [0] https://hbr.org/2017/10/a-study-used-sensors-to-show-that-men-and-women-are-treated-differently-at-work https://hbr.org/2017/10/a-study-used-sensors-to-show-that-me...
- mfoy_ 9y ago
  So you're saying it's not the system, or at least not solely the system, and that the managers are almost certainly biased? I can appreciate that. It's almost certainly true. Most people are biased. The point of my comment wasn't argue differently, or to defend Uber or their managers, but to show how choosing a sexist system is the same as being sexist, in effect.
- LeoJiWoo 9y ago
  I'm highly skeptical of your links explanation. People have good reason to be doubtful of social sciences, and the replication crisis has only gotten worse now affecting biological science. https://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248 https://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-... http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778 http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778
sidlls 9y ago

Grustaf 9y ago

Even if true, why would this be a bigger problem in a stack ranking system? Surely they wouldn’t promote more people in total just because they had some other, more reasonable system? They’d still favour men if they are anti-women.

maxxxxx 9y ago

When I look at the female managers in my company I don't think they do any better.